I thought it might be handy to have a single thread where we can post and discuss mentions of the show in the media. A friend of mine (who is also a former contestant, but does not post on this board) shared this item from GQ on the evolution of the show's writing style. What I personally found most interesting is the acknowledgement that Alex is, apparently, more directly involved in writing the clues than one might have originally believed.

Rewording a line so that the actor who delivers it can do so naturally and effortlessly? Happens on every set in Hollywood -- much to the annoyance of the writer, usually. Nice that the J! crew is smart enough to incorporate it into the process.

Also good to see the TOM acknowledged -- if not by name -- as the central element of good clue-writing. I'll be ready for my GQ photoshoot the day they finally call it by its proper name!

Life IS pain, Princess. Anyone telling you differently is selling something.

I liked the article, but it wasn't surprising that Alex is a hands-on participant in the question-writing process. That fact (and the whole process) was also revealed in "The Jeopardy! Book", published in October 1990.

TomKBaltimoreBoy wrote:Rewording a line so that the actor who delivers it can do so naturally and effortlessly? Happens on every set in Hollywood -- much to the annoyance of the writer, usually. Nice that the J! crew is smart enough to incorporate it into the process.

khiddy wrote:I liked the article, but it wasn't surprising that Alex is a hands-on participant in the question-writing process. That fact (and the whole process) was also revealed in "The Jeopardy! Book", published in October 1990.

Up until a few days ago, I knew about the involvement in 1990, but I assumed that Alex hadn't been involved in the clue writing since then. The surprise was that he's still there.

alamble wrote:

TomKBaltimoreBoy wrote:Rewording a line so that the actor who delivers it can do so naturally and effortlessly? Happens on every set in Hollywood -- much to the annoyance of the writer, usually. Nice that the J! crew is smart enough to incorporate it into the process.

Interesting that you say that, I was just reading an article today about Lloyd Robertson (North America's longest serving news anchor (of the CTV Evening News) who will be retiring tomorrow) and it was mentioned that part of the reason he switched from CBC to its main competition CTV in the 1970s is that per CBC union rules, the anchor didn't have any say in what he read on-air, he was just to read the words written for him. That was a big sticking point with Robertson.

So, at least in some time, thanks to unions, they did read the copy exactly as written, at least on CBC.

"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

TomKBaltimoreBoy wrote:Rewording a line so that the actor who delivers it can do so naturally and effortlessly? Happens on every set in Hollywood -- much to the annoyance of the writer, usually. Nice that the J! crew is smart enough to incorporate it into the process.

Interesting that you say that, I was just reading an article today about Lloyd Robertson (North America's longest serving news anchor (of the CTV Evening News) who will be retiring tomorrow) and it was mentioned that part of the reason he switched from CBC to its main competition CTV in the 1970s is that per CBC union rules, the anchor didn't have any say in what he read on-air, he was just to read the words written for him. That was a big sticking point with Robertson.

So, at least in some time, thanks to unions, they did read the copy exactly as written, at least on CBC.

That is likely unique to Canadian media. Here in the States, writers, reporters and on-air personalities for TV news are not members of a union. I can only speak for how it was taught at my university, but no one - not student reporters, student anchors, nor our full-time on-air staff - ever went on-air without reviewing the scripts first. Of course, we also mostly wrote our own stuff.

dhkendall wrote:
Interesting that you say that, I was just reading an article today about Lloyd Robertson (North America's longest serving news anchor (of the CTV Evening News) who will be retiring tomorrow) and it was mentioned that part of the reason he switched from CBC to its main competition CTV in the 1970s is that per CBC union rules, the anchor didn't have any say in what he read on-air, he was just to read the words written for him. That was a big sticking point with Robertson.

So, at least in some time, thanks to unions, they did read the copy exactly as written, at least on CBC.

That is likely unique to Canadian media. Here in the States, writers, reporters and on-air personalities for TV news are not members of a union. I can only speak for how it was taught at my university, but no one - not student reporters, student anchors, nor our full-time on-air staff - ever went on-air without reviewing the scripts first. Of course, we also mostly wrote our own stuff.

I tried to stress in my quip that this was the 1970s, I got the impression from the article that times have changed long ago in that department. I've never been up close and personal with journalistic practices (closest I came was a tour of the newsroom and broadcast area of the local CBC studio one time, for a news junkie like me I was in heaven (even have a VHS tape they made of me "reading the news", which was part of the tour) but that's the impression I got - it was union practice in CBC in the 1970s, but the switch to the way it is now was so long ago it's hardly remembered.

"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

I had a good email conversation with him. His sole intent was maximizing the expected value of the total payouts, "logical" wagers be damned.

Ahhh....I see. As opposed to increasing an individuals' chance of winning.

It's a rather silly article; its analysis shows that if the leader always wagers to tie and the second-place player always wagers all-in, then both players would benefit. Okay, that might have been obvious but it's good to check it empirically. The problem is, the author calls this "optimal wagering" in the title, and concludes that "players should virtually always play for the tie". The conclusion might be correct if the players were a team, cooperating with each other and colluding against the production company. But in real life the players are not going to cheat like that. Therefore the second-place player frequently has better options than an all-in wager. Hence the word "optimal" is misleading in the title of Devin Shelly's article.

Not really a media reference, but Jeopardy got mentioned on tonight's episode of 24.

The president (who seems to be in the early stages of Alzheimer's) confused Teddy Roosevelt and FDR during a staff meeting. His chief of staff corrected him afterwards and the president told him he'd do great on Jeopardy.